'BY WOMEN, FOR WOMEN' Vegan cafe charges male customers 18 percent man tax and seats women first i

[sheshe2]

A CAFE is making waves after it began charging blokes more money in a bid to close the gender pay gap.
The feminist vegan owner of Handsome Her eatery in Melbourne, Australia, is making them pay an 18 per cent “man tax” as well as giving women priority over seating.

Owner Alex O’Brien told Broadsheet website: “I do want people to think about it, because we’ve had this (pay discrepancy) for decades and decades and we’re bringing it to the forefront of people’s minds.

“I like that it is making men stop and question their privilege a little bit.”
Ms O’Brien says the response from her customers has been positive, with one man even donating $50 (£30) to the cause.

She said: “There’s been nothing but positivity from everyone, males and females.”




Alex O’Brien, left, dreamed up the idea to make men take the issue of unequal pay more seriously




Read More!!!!!https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4176712/men-tax-pay-more-melbourne-cafe/


Love. Love. Love This!

[Eko]

1. Id eat there

and pay the man tax, no problem.

[brooklynite]

3. So, discrimination is okay as long as it aligns with your biases?

[sheshe2]

7. So leaving us behind is okay if it aligns with your beliefs?

You know the one....we will get back to you later. We have heard that for years and we will not sit down or shut up.

[Laffy Kat]

115. Yes, like on choice.

[smirkymonkey]

127. Hear, hear!

[Eko]

12. It has nothing to do with any "bias" for me.

But an understanding that there is gender inequality and that to participate in this would be to help raise awareness. I'm also a dude.

[sheshe2]

19. I love you Eko!!!!

[Eko]

23. My mom raised me and my two brothers alone.

Most of the time working two jobs, I was a latch key kid and ate tons of government cheese and powdered milk. I know whats up.
Thanks Sheshe, you rock!

[sheshe2]

29. Thank you Eko.

We will not sit down when told to. Our voice. Hey you, your mother rocks. Brava for doing what she had to do with no help. That is love and a determination only a mother would know. You were hers and she cared for you.

[MLAA]

63. Thank you, dude. 😬

[sheshe2]

99. Thank you for what?

Please explain.

[MLAA]

192. I was thanking Eko (he declared himself a dude) for supporting the cafe. I too support it.😃

I am a strong, outspoken vegan feminist (i.e. Equality for men and women in all things)

[sheshe2]

193. Got it.

Thanks, MLAA.

Sorry.

[MLAA]

194. np 😉

[hfojvt]

155. except that you clearly have a bias

a bias in favor of women at the expense of men.

Nothing unusual about that, even among males. Heck, I probably have the same bias.

[Squinch]

20. Why do you see this as discrimination rather than a legitimate effort to redress the "female tax"

that women pay on most goods and services, and to redress the pay gap? It's all in your point of view. You see bias. I see a rebuttal of a bias.

[Honeycombe8]

73. Because it's not specific to the people who did the original bias. That's the definition of ...

That's the definition of discrimination. Attributing to an entire group the traits or behavior of some of that group.

It's probable that some men who go to eat there would in fact be paid less than the women they're with. And they had nothing to do with setting wages for anyone.

Also, the pay differential is not entirely what people think - that women are paid less for the same job. That still happens, of course. But some of the pay difference is because the work that the women choose to do pays less than the male jobs pay. It's a general paying less of female-dominated jobs.

[Lord_at_War]

104. I call it the "death gap"

Men are 93% of all workplace deaths. The time I see a woman hanging on to the back of a garbage truck will be the first. How many women work "high iron"? How many are maintenance mechanics in a steel plant? Or, how many want to hump 5 tons of glass off a trailer in 2 hours?

Meanwhile, 99% of all Kindergarten teachers are women who can get a $50K salary with a master's degree, and all they do is stop the morons from eating their glue and say "nap time".

I will agree that women are discriminated against at middle and upper levels of management, but it's just companies that don't want to risk her deciding to have a child and taking a year or two off...

[Honeycombe8]

119. You are a bit naive.

Kindergarten teachers get close to minimum wage here.

Yes...women are paid less for no other reason than they are female. It's a "Gentleman's Agreement," so to speak. Everyone knows to offer women less, so women must accept it. They can't expect to go elsewhere and get paid more, because of the Gentleman's Agreement.

There are plenty of jobs that men do that are not dangerous but which pay more than female jobs. Take janitors. Janitors get paid more than maids. Their duties are similar. But janitor is a male-dominated job, while maid is female-dominated. Female-dominated jobs are generally valued less (if you read your own words, you can see the denigration of kindergarten teachers, as an example of denigrating a female-dominated job).

But generally, if a job is unpleasant to do, or dangerous, it's harder to get workers, so it has to pay more (or get slave labor, like undocumented workers, who have no choice).

[hfojvt]

159. so now you are arguing that janitors make too much money?

Similar jobs are only similar, they are not the same, and pay (and benefits) vary from place to place.

When I started in the prestigious janitorial field I was making $5.50 an hour for working from 2-8 in the morning, and I had zero for benefits - no paid holidays, no sick leave, no paid vacation, no pension. Just a whopping ten cents an hour more than minimum wage.

That still seemed to me better than the $7 an hour factory job because it did not involve an hour and a half of commuting. It also allowed me to keep longer hours at my bookstore.

Then a few years later I got a job for a janitorial service owned by a woman (who acted like she owned her employees) where I got a whole $8 an hour before I quit to take awesome factory temp work (hoping to get in the union factory, but they laid off all their temps after six days).

A few years later I felt vert fortunate to get $10.69 an hour plus benefits for a part-time janitorial type job. Government work pays better than the private sector, that is for sure. But the previous person in that job was a woman, who later on became my boss's boss.

It sure can be a tough world for a woman, especially if, like that one, they are a high school drop out.

[Honeycombe8]

197. Can you read?

If so, please re-read my post and notice that nowhere do I say that janitors are overpaid.

Discrimination is wrong...always. Discrimination is NOT charging more a sensible business reason, and it is NOT paying less based on a reasonable reason. Therefore, since raising fees for the men to eat at a restaurant for no other reason than they are male, is, by definition, discrimination. The men walking through the door have done nothing wrong, and do not cost the restaurant any more than female customers.

[hfojvt]

203. actually you did

"Janitors get paid more than maids."

You seem to feel that that is wrong and the wrongness has something to do with gender. So apparently it would be less wrong if janitors were paid less so that their pay was now equal to that (somehow) of maids.

Problem solved. You might argue for a different solution if you had stated the problem differently like "Maids are paid less than janitors".

But yeah, I guess most people do just assume that janitors can't read and that they don't need to grant them any respect in conversation.

[Honeycombe8]

204. I said, "Janitors get paid more than maids." I did NOT say, "Janitors are overpaid."

You understand the difference? I don't think we have a problem with the working class being overpaid, do you? No...I do think we have a problem with WOMEN'S JOBS being underpaid.

NOW you understand the difference between "A gets paid more than B" and "A is overpaid."

I forget how some people can't discern differences in two different statements. Example: The new FBI Director was reported as saying he'd tell everyone that if they get a call from a foreign nation with dirt on opposition, to call him and report it to the FBI.

But I saw the testimony and that is not what he said. He said something like (after being asked several times to say ANYTHING about it), "Yes, I would agree that if a politician got a call from a foreign nation under those circumstances, that that is something I'd be interested in knowing about."

See the difference in the two statements? So you're in good company. Even Senators can't discern the difference. It could be that people hear what they want to hear.

[bettyellen]

179. "Agree there's discrimination, but....." just NOPE. Obvs YOU had shitty teachers though....

With the way you talk about them, and wave away huge amounts of discrimination.

[politicat]

107. If for one hour, the men who are voluntarily there experience what most women live with

Every hour... nope, sorry, I cannot spare any poor menz feels for an experience of informed consent.

Many other things harm men, from a toxic culture that keeps them out of medical and mental health care because they'd rather die than appear weak, to toxic entitlement, to socialization that handicaps (in the sports sense) their ability to form strong relationships... I have sympathy for men on a dozen fronts. Not this one.

And the pay differences in types of work? It's not that taking care of children is inherently less fatiguing or time consuming or stressful or damaging to the body than changing oil; it's just that society values it less, so daycare workers get $2 an hour less than the Jiffy-lube tech. It's not that men can't provide childcare, or women can't do oil changes. But in a daycare, nobody's going to assume she is sleeping with the boss to get the job or getting dick-pics from coworkers because way too many men find being professional is too hard. That peace of mind shouldn't have to cost $2 an hour, but it often does. Or $20K a year, because going to work to write software often depends on being willing to tolerate an environment where every coworker wants to undermine and sabotage you.

The professional choices women make are rational, but the factors that lead to those choices are 1) rarely in our control, 2) not of our own making, and 3) caused by the irrational behaviors of others.

[Honeycombe8]

118. I'm against discrimination. You're making it sound like a funsie "volunteer" thing.

You could say that about a woman working for less money than she thinks she deserves. She's there voluntarily.

[politicat]

140. Let's re-work your notion.

People of color volunteer to live in segregated, failed-the-building-code neighborhoods because they don't want to put up with the hassle of racist neighbors.

Trans people choose to work for less money in environments where their physical safety is not under daily threat, so it's all fine! No discrimination there because it's voluntary.

No, dude, none of this is voluntary. The choices we make are between "the pay sucks" and "this job could kill me, harm me, or land me in court for the next decade, if I'm lucky." That's not voluntary, because there's no option of "decent pay, fair working environment, no harassment".

People spend a third of their waking hours at work -- being stuck in a place where you're undermined, undervalued, despised and harassed because you're doing your job doesn't just harm those 40 hours a week. It affects every hour. You sound like you want to keep all of the privilege of never having to think about this because it does not affect you personally, and for all of us who aren't exactly like you to shut up and go away, and that is exactly what chauvinism is.

And I'm done. Good day.

[Honeycombe8]

143. Exactly. And the males being charged more for the sins of others are not being charged "voluntarily.

Thanks for making my point.

I am against discrimination, period. It is wrong. It is never right.

[Squinch]

169. Someone is marching men at gunpoint into this vegan cafe?

[hfojvt]

158. I don't care much either

any man foolish enough or whipped enough to put up with that is free to do so.

However, I doubt there would be this kind of tolerance if there was a "Men's rights cafe" that did the same thing in reverse. Even though nobody HAS to eat there if they don't want.

I am not at all sure that the problems most women live with every hour are all that different than what anybody else lives with, if not less than average.

I seem to have fallen down a slippery slope as now we have gone from equal pay for equal work to believing that a jiffy-lube tech should be paid the same as a daycare worker.

"way too many men". Well, at least you didn't say all, but does there seem to be just a hint of misandry there? Damn those men.

I am sure my niece the software writer could tell me some horror stories and I would agree that she has faced some b.s., but she can also share pictures of her trip to Norway. Me, I could tell some horror stories too and have put up with some b.s. and have never been to Norway or 1/10th of the other places she has been in her 18 less years of life. She's 37 and I did not get to Europe until I was 40. I haven't really had much choice in my work life, unless begging for a job counts as a choice.

[pangaia]

39. You didn't REALLY write that, did you?

[brooklynite]

130. Did I describe charging one group more than another "discrimination"?

Suppose I had a business in a urban area and determined that I was more likely to be robbed by black people. Would charging black customers more to compensate be appropriate?

[Rob H.]

51. So much for "nothing but positivity from everyone, males and females"

the owner talks about. Good job.

[heaven05]

124. well men, all men, including white males especially

have all discrimination laws to pick from and use. And have chose and used them for many, many generations against all women and all minorities. Especially in the good ole USof A....

If I'm ever in the area, I will eat there and pay every charge.....

[Weekend Warrior]

132. How is leveling the playing field "discrimination"?

How is education "discrimination"?

[brooklynite]

133. Fun fact: my wife makes 20X my salary...

Does she get seated seperately, or can I be an honorary woman if we walk in together?

[Weekend Warrior]

135. Anecdotal evidence to make a point about gender.

I've seen where that is a popular way to explain things away among a certain group.

[mercuryblues]

142. Before I answer that question

I need a few answers

Do you and your wife work in the same occupation, for the same amount of time?
Does your wife have a higher education than you?
Do you earn more than a woman working the same job as you?
Does your wife earn the same as her male counterpart?

[brooklynite]

144. Answers

My wife is a lawyer, I am a senior transportation manager (the managing Director for the organizaiton is a woman)

My wife has a law degree; I have a master's degree.

No

Yes, her firm allocates salary to all partners based on seniority.

[mercuryblues]

167. So you have different jobs

with different education. If I was your wife, I wouldn't be so sure about equal pay. Of course you boss should earn more than you. What I asked about was a woman in the same position as you.

[brooklynite]

178. I work for the Government; we don't discriminate.

[uppityperson]

2. I've been trying to come up with something to compare the current "accept pro-life anti-choice

Democrats to get Dems elected, you purist" kefuffle going on here at du.

What rights are men willing to pass by to elect Dems? Be charged more?

It's not the same as having health care autonomy, but is a loss by gender. I hope this makes sense.

This is an interesting act.

[taught_me_patience]

4. This would be completely illegal in California

Where you cannot discriminate based on gender.

[sheshe2]

9. LOL!!!

They discriminate against women. We are not paid the same as a man and do not get the jobs before they do.

[David__77]

18. As a Californian, I'm thankful it would be illegal.

I want public accomodations to charge the same price and provide the same service regardless of sex.

[pangaia]

42. I want everyone to receive th same pay for the same service

regardless of sex.

[sheshe2]

74. +1000

[Squinch]

48. Yeah, I want that too. But it usually doesn't happen. The only reason people are outraged

at this is that the tax is on men rather than where it is usually charged: on women.

[David__77]

67. I would also oppose a tax on women.

i get the point. I don't think providing unequal accommodations is the way to make it.

[Honeycombe8]

75. I agree. This is blatant discrimination against people who likely have nothing to do with the...

original wages that are being protested. That is the essence of discrimination. And terrorism, too, for that matter (punishing those other people over there for the wrongs committed by these people over here, because they are of the same general group).

[sheshe2]

76. We already have unequal accommodations.

Women are charged more, turn about is fair play.

[X_Digger]

200. Stepping on a random person's toes because someone steps on yours just makes a lot of sore feet.

Seriously, most people give up the "well <x> did it first!" school of thought in elementary school.

Fair play is equal pay. It's not taking from one to make up for another.

[Squinch]

170. In what way are you opposing the "taxes" women pay every day for goods and services?

[David__77]

173. California businesses should not charge women or men a sex-based "service charge."

I support California's laws against discrimination in public accommodations, and believe that this cafe would be in violation of laws, were it operating in California.

Whether it's called a "tax," a "discount," or a "service charge," it would violate the laws on public accommodations.

[Squinch]

174. I guarantee you that there are plenty of businesses who are violating that law. Just like

in New York.

And no one cares about it. And the only redress a woman has is to bring a very expensive lawsuit.

This goes on under everyone's noses, always has, and yet this café turns it around and everyone is outraged. It's the height of hypocrisy.

[David__77]

176. I understand what you're saying.

I'm glad that this issue is being discussed.

I think that one thing people can do is to do a little research on sex-based price discrimination, and support action aimed to curb it, including legislative action (see, for instance: http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/sdut-pink-tax-2016apr29-story.html).

[Squinch]

177. In the meantime, I still pay more for everything.

[David__77]

180. And I imagine that passage of a law would not be enough.

I imagine that it would need to be implemented, in part, with the assistance of litigation against non-compliant businesses.

[Squinch]

181. So I have to pay more and bring a law suit. You just need to bring your shirt to

the cleaners and it gets cleaned for the lower price.

[David__77]

187. I definitely think that the law should allow for recouping of legal fees from non-compliant parties.

...

[Squinch]

190. LOL! Or maybe we could just support the people who do things to point out the

discrimination rather than being outraged at those people.

Because the idea that people are going to bring law suits over these things is not practical.

[David__77]

191. I understand, and would not agree with sex-based accommodations discrimination.

Not for the purpose of pointing something out, or for any other purpose.

I do not see how this method, perhaps having the intention of pointing out discrimination, will mitigate discrimination.

[spiderman17]

5. this would be so

illegal in the US

[Squinch]

10. And yet it's done to women all the time in every aspect of life in the US.

[sheshe2]

14. Thank you Squinch.

Yes it is, every damn time in every fugging aspect of our lives.

[BigmanPigman]

87. Once, out of curiosity I compared two deodorants at CVS.

They were the same brand, size, even ingredients and the one for women was 75 cents more. I had no idea the color pink is so expensive to produce and manufacture.

I have often thought over my lifetime how much I have spent on tampons and all the rest that goes with it and I did the math. If men had to pay this tampons would probably be free and they would get 5 paid sick days a month too.

It all adds up to what we all already know...we have been penalized in a zillion ways by men for over two thousand years.

[sheshe2]

26. Well forced ultasounds should be illegal but are not in some states.

Unequal pay should be illegal, but it is not.
Charging a woman more for healthcare should be illegal but it is not.
Paying us less per hour should be illegal, but it is not.
Taking away preventive healthcare through planned parenthood should be illegal, but it is not.

Why is that? Because so the white men tell us so. They are, so they believe superior to us.

[spiderman17]

69. where

do women get charged more for medical procedures?

[sheshe2]

80. You are new.

Please read up on topics.

http://www.businessinsurance.com/article/20141024/NEWS03/141029856

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/19/health/policy/women-still-pay-more-for-health-insurance-data-shows.html

[spiderman17]

96. both links say

women use more medical services than men. it does not say that women pay more for the exact same medical procedure.

if women consume more health care services, wouldn't you expect them to pay more? in any case gender rating is now not allowed in the indivdual exchanges under ACA

[sheshe2]

98. I pay for your viagra.

I don't use it.

Yes we use more in some cases. Childbirth for one. Since when is childbirth a one way street. Men and women have babies. Should only the women pay for them, and not the fathers? One more thought. I have no children and beyond child bearing years, I have no problem covering theirs. Why do you?

[KitSileya]

120. Not only that, but everyone is born.

That's why men and women should pay for pre-natal care and childbirth - everyone goes through labor by being born regardless of whether they themselves choose to have children.

[Orrex]

147. I predict that the poster will be with us a long time

Looking forward to many years of positive contributions.

[spiderman17]

153. you're making

a normative argument not an economic argument. My point is that women pay more for health care because they use more health care. This doesn't seem to me as discrimination. Whether males should subsidize women's health care costs is a separate issue.

How do you feel about young male drivers paying more for car insurance than older female drivers?

[George II]

122. Do women get prostate cancer, suffer from ED, etc.?

[PoliticAverse]

46. It actually would depend on the state and or locality. Many places in the US permit such pricing...

differences based on gender.

[Honeycombe8]

78. I believe that's only when there is a difference in the service.

Like haircuts, when women haircutting is more involved or takes more time.

[Ninsianna]

110. It's not. They charge more for services and things like razors and other items

that are identical to ones marketed for men. These are the defenses they use, but they're pretty thin. There is a surcharge for being a woman.

[Honeycombe8]

117. Generally speaking, it takes longer to do women's hair than men's. And that's a fact.

The fact that YOU don't take longer is an argument for them to evaluate and price each person individually. If they'd rather just set prices generally male and female, that's up to them.

If you go to Supercuts, it's the same price, BTW. They don't do fancy stuff there, so the time consuming women's hair isn't a factor, I guess.

[Bettie]

128. For some women it might

for most of us, not really.

A woman getting a trim takes about the same amount of time and effort as a man getting a trim.

Women's short haircuts take about as much maintenance as men's short haircuts.

Color/perms etc. are not a woman only thing anymore either.

[Honeycombe8]

145. Nope. Generally speaking, it takes longer to "do" women's hair. So say hairstylists. They are free..

They are free to charge that gender more, or the other less, if they want. They could also charge everyone the same price, taking into account the add'l time that women take. They could also evaluate each and every person when they come in, and then tell them how much it'll be. That means the customer won't know the price until he or she gets there. That's up to the business.

You can always go to Supercuts or some such place, which does charge everyone the same.

But there is a basis to charge women more in the case of hairstylists, whether the customer agrees with that or not.

[Doreen]

113. Not true. It costs me more to get a simple trim ( I mean real simple ) and

it costs more than a man to get a standard hair cut. My hair takes no longer to do a simple trim than a man to get a standard hair cut. It costs a woman more to get the hair on the back of her neck shaved off than it does a man and the same damn thing is done and it does not matter if she has long hair or not. I got the back of my neck shaved at a barbers shop and my hair was short then and it still cost me more.....explain that. Hair care is a very bad example.

[Honeycombe8]

116. Not YOU. Not a particular person. But in general it takes longer to do women's hair.

They don't evaluate each and every person individually, but pricing on the general time it takes can be justified.

[Doreen]

152. OK, let me be general then. I have known men who have long hair and get it colored

or permed and even though it takes just as long and is the same difficulty level they get charged less. I have heard conversations between men and women comparing prices for the same level of difficulty for hair care at salons and it is always less for the men. Who knows, maybe it is because I live in a red county but I doubt it because just half an hour up the road to Olympia it is the same and Olympia is blue. Maybe it is just Washington State.

[crazycatlady]

54. So you're okay with a surcharge for women's and girls' products?

It is commonplace. Go to the toiletries aisle in any given store and see the markups for women's products.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/12/26/gender-pricing-men-products_n_8875336.html

Go to a toy store and look at the price premium that a parent (or loved one) would pay for a pink version of the same product for little girls (yes you can get the non pink ones but kids like my niece won't touch anything that is 'for boys')

http://fortune.com/2016/05/25/pink-toy-prices-higher/

[spiderman17]

71. both men and women

pay the same price for the pink toys.

the coffee shop here is forcing men to pay more

[sheshe2]

100. No force.

Lol...unlike some women they have a choice what to do with their bodies. They can go down the street for a cup of coffee. Women have to cross states to get an abortion if that is their choice. Also the GOP is desperately closing Planned parenthood clinics because of said abortions. You do know that PP does far far more than that, correct??????

[crazycatlady]

123. Women have been forced to pay more for ages

And on top of that they're paid less. Somehow when the shoe's on the other foot all the fragile MRAs are coming out of the woodwork. One cafe owner is simply forcing reality on men to show them what women have always faced.

Tell me dear man

When was the last time you were catcalled in the street?
Do you feel that you can walk by a construction site without people treating you like a dog does a piece of meat?
When was the last time some random stranger told you to smile?
Has your body ever been violated to the point where if you reported it, the authorities would question what you wore that day?
Have you ever had a boss say things like "good boy" to you?
Have you ever been told to step aside and let the 'big boys' handle this?
If someone running for POTUS 'joked' around about grabbing you by the dick, would you take it seriously or dismiss it as 'locker room talk?'
Name one incident where your reproductive rights were decided by a legislator

[sheshe2]

154. + Infinity!

[Bettie]

126. And they can choose not to go to this particular cafe

if they object.

No one is being forced, the policy is stated up front anyone who disagrees with the policy can simply choose not to eat there.

[spiderman17]

150. just curious

how do you feel about cafes with signs that said "no blacks served" ? They can always eat at the next cafe.

Are you arguing that establishments open to the public should legally be allowed to discriminate who they serve or how much to charge?

[Bettie]

160. First: They don't say

"no men served".

Second, the purpose of this is to highlight a social problem.

Third, from another article: the surcharge is in place one week per month and is not compulsory.
[link:http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/food/restaurants-bars/handsome-her-cafe-in-brunswick-melbourne-charges-men-18-gender-gap-surcharge/news-story/81fc5074b7e9be8aa05240f157774e31|

The extra is being donated to a charity.

So, in the end, it is exactly NOTHING like saying "no ____ served".

[Weekend Warrior]

134. No, it's not.

It happens to women in this country every single day. Look at the wage gap. I get that more people take offence when it is directed at men.

[bluepen]

8. Some of us, male or female, would pay 0%.

Unless they started selling chicken and beef. But even then, hard to beat Five Guys and In-N-Out Burger. So, hard pass, either way.

[uppityperson]

22. You'd not eat a vegan meal? Once?

[bluepen]

64. I wouldn't call it a meal.

But I understand others do.

Some people would never eat meat. I know some who won't on principle, and some who just won't and never have (raised that way).

I like meat. No big deal. People are different.

[uppityperson]

94. How about a peanut butter and jelly sandwich?

[bluepen]

95. Pretty good snack.

Although sometimes I just go for the peanut butter. No jelly. Good snack for getting you through a long afternoon after lunch, especially if you're having a late dinner. Much better than a bag of chips or candy or something like that.

[uppityperson]

105. Pbj, tomato soup, chips, glass of juice vegan

[bluepen]

108. Yep. Good snacks. Not meals.

[uppityperson]

109. Fine meal, eaten by my dear old dad most of his working life for lunch.

[bluepen]

111. Cool

👍🏼

[uppityperson]

112. It was amusing to discover he didn't know how to make a sandwich at 60 yrs old.

My mom or one of us kids made his lunch. He finally asked us to teach him how to make a sandwich, scrambled eggs, etc, finally ended up cooking ok. But the first time, asking us to show him how, took us aback. I miss him.

[Hortensis]

156. Ah. Bet you do. My husband had to search for the can opener

for the first 15 years or so of our marriage. Now as I continue working while he's retired, he makes his own breakfast and makes great scrambled eggs. Similar to your dad, though, he now makes himself cereal one day, eggs the next and will go to some trouble to make sure that routine isn't upset. Also uses only his one, favorite coffee cup out of the entire collection, and rarely buys anything for sandwiches but sliced turkey. I have a picture of how he would live if anything happened to me, but he'd have our daughter and DIL, both strong minded women, to contend with if his regression got too weird. He might not even have a say about whose house they moved him to.

Bluepen, my husband's long broken in and eats meatless, and even vegan if it happens to qualify as that, when that's what's served, part of the wide range I prepare the rest of the time. He usually asserts himself by commenting, "No meat?," though.
Fwiw, I don't care for this restauranteur's approach and doubt I'd eat there for that reason, but if she can make a living with that stand, fine. No skin off my nose, and I like people doing their things as long as their fists do stop short of where others' noses begin. People could argue that last in this case, of course.

[brooklynite]

131. Milk and eggs in the bread?

[uppityperson]

146. not necessarily

[mucifer]

11. Happy to see a vegan threat where us vegans don't get bashed.

[Codeine]

16. Give it time. nt

[MLAA]

65. Don't take any crap..keep saving furry friends, the planet and your health. 😀 I'm with you

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

188. Gol-danged Radical Vegan Terrists putting it to us men!

There. Bashing complete.

Oh, and, "bon apetit".

[mucifer]

199. Thanks!

[Ms. Toad]

13. Nice statement, but I doubt it will last long.

It appears to violate sex discrimination law - that prohibit discriminating on the basis of sex with respect to provision of goods, services, and facilities.

https://www.humanrights.gov.au/sites/default/files/GPGB_quick_guide_to_discrimination_laws_0.pdf

[Squinch]

17. They could argue that it is a form of affirmative action aimed at reducing the pay gap.

Legitimately, I would think. How can we say that there is no discrimination allowed when we all know that women are paid less than men?

[Ms. Toad]

21. Unless the interpretation of their laws is vastly different than the US,

that won't fly.

Only prohibitions against age discrimination in the US are one-way (you can discriminate against people under 40 at will, but discrimination against people over 40 is prohibited by law). Everything prohibits discrimination by category - not viewpoint (i.e. using age as a category is perfectly fine, as long as you don't use it to discriminate against people over 40; using gender as a category is prohibited, regardless of who is being discriminated against.)

[Squinch]

24. So then how are dry cleaners allowed to charge women three times what men pay to clean a shirt?

And why doesn't that make international news?

And we both know that's only one of a thousand examples I could come up with.

[Ms. Toad]

28. Take it to court, and you'd win,

unless they could justify it by the work required. The laws are not self-executing - the injured parties have to take the offending party to court.

E.g. if both shirts are button-down long fitted sleeve with a collar and cuffs, without bust darts, same fabric content, they have to charge the same. Part of the difference is that men's shirts tend to be plainer (both as to decorations and as to seams - women's tend to have more seams (darts included), more decorative collars, slightly to significantly gathered sleeves - all those things do require additional care in cleaning, so once there is a non-gender-based difference, they can charge more - however I'm sure there are some who are merely looking at the gender of the owner.

So when local dry cleaners get away with it, it is because no one takes them to court - an example of why class actions were invented. The amount paid for each shirt is so small that the cost of one individual litigating it makes taking it to court prohibitive. If it did happen to make national news, and it was a national chain, chances are that a class action suit would result and the practice would end.

[Squinch]

32. So an 18% tax on a veggie burrito is the same thing. It's no different, and the fact that this

makes international news tells us that this outrages people while the dry cleaning and the thousand other examples where women pay more (e.g. services, toiletries, repairs of all kinds, hair care etc.) do not outrage people.

Something else: you are right. No one does put together a class action suit against the local dry cleaner. But it will not surprise me at all if someone goes after those women for their 18% tax on the veggie burrito.

And just an aside, I don't know about dry cleaners where you live but no one around here "has to" charge the same for the same kind of shirt, and no one is pricing it out based on darts and gathers. A woman's oxford shirt, for example, costs more than a man's oxford shirt to dry clean.

[Ms. Toad]

50. As I said - take it to court and you'd win.

As long as the shirts are identical.

As I said, the laws are not self-executing - so someone has to file suit to force compliance. But you'd pay thousands of dollars to end the practice and if it is truly a local dry cleaner you would solve the problem at one store. Which is why it continues - no one takes legal action. But dry cleaning is a public accommodation and is not permitted to discriminate based on gender. So if the shirts are identical, by law, they have to charge the same amount.

I don't know if Australia has class action suits - but if they do, I wouldn't be surprised because it has obviously made international news. Get your dry cleaner into international news, and the chances of litigation will increase dramatically.

[Squinch]

59. So you are pointing out another, much bigger, female tax here.

The discrepancy in price is discrimination.

If a woman does not want to be subject to this discrimination, she has to spend a fortune to bring a law suit. Not to mention the time and aggravation it costs her

So now she's paying the higher price AND the legal fees.

The man just pays his lower price and his shirt gets cleaned.

[Ms. Toad]

82. That's always the way it is, unfortunately.

The Obergefell plaintiffs had to pay, and go through the inconvenience of having their out-of-state marriages recognized by the states in which they were living, as did Edie Windsor before them, as did Loving while recognition was automatic for all of the same gender couples (and, as to the Lovings, all of the intra-racial couples).

And, even after Obergefell, same gender couples in Kentucky had to go through the inconvenience and sue to establish that the ruling really did apply in a different state.

That's why there are organizations that fight to enforce civil rights laws (e.g. Lambda Legal - which funded our appeal in in re the Adoption of Jane Doe, but not the $10,000 or so we paid out of pocket for trial level case. Yes - it stinks that it takes someone with enough money, time, and knowledge of the law to enforce the laws that exist. But that's the reality.

[Motownman78]

30. Because the woman's shirt is made from

different fabrics? I have never heard of a dry cleaner charging different prices for the same shirt.

[Squinch]

33. It's almost universal in NYC. And no, not based on fabric. Just gender.

[PoliticAverse]

55. Rampant though it may be, gender-based pricing is actually illegal in New York City. n/t

[Squinch]

62. So, as I said up thread, in order to end the discrimination of the higher price of the

dry cleaning (and that is only an example. Most goods and services cost more for women) the woman NOW has to pay the even BIGGER "female tax" of financing a lawsuit to enforce that existing law.

Men don't have to hire a lawyer to get a fair price on dry cleaning, healthcare, car or home repairs, clothing, insurance, grooming services and on and on and on....

[Ninsianna]

85. They do it in motown too, and it has nothing to do with fabric or the ruffles etc.

they claim women supposedly have on their shirts.

[PoliticAverse]

53. There is no US federal law that prohibits gender-based pricing. States and localities may have such

laws prohibiting it though.

There's actually an extensive Wikipedia article on this issue:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender-based_price_discrimination_in_the_United_States

[Honeycombe8]

81. I never did. The dry cleaners charged the same.

If it's a dress shirt, it's one price, whether male or female. If it's a suit, it's one price, whether male of female.

Maybe if there's a tendency for women to dry clean fancy shirts, the place starts charging more for women, rather than looking at each shirt individually.

Tailors charge women more, though, I think. Even for just hemming, which is the same for both genders.

And clothing stores provide hemming and basic alterations for FREE!

[crazycatlady]

125. NOt the case for housing

In my neck of the woods, if you want to buy a new construction house and you're under 55, you're SOL. The only new houses being built are in 55+ communities. How is that not discrimination?

[Ms. Toad]

163. There are special laws for 55+ communities,

Which also impose additional obligations related to the (presumed) special needs of that population. But - those communities also have to accept individuals with certain disabilities of any age (my knowledge of the details of the law are fuzzy as to whether it is all, or merely certain ones).

But anyone with money to invest can choose to invest it in any legal project - so if the investors are choosing to invest in developing communities that are lawfully permitted to discriminate based on age (as 55+ communities that meet the other restrictions are) - rather than in developments that accept everyone, it isn't unlawful discrimination.

If, on the other hand, they chose to invest in whites only or blacks only communities, then it would be unlawful discrimination.

Aside from which, if you want new construction you can always build your own house - so you're not exactly SOL.

[msongs]

15. glad to hear they are ok with an 18% extra charge placed on women as well nt

[Weekend Warrior]

136. They aren't ok with it.

But they have lived with it every day since birth.

[brettdale]

25. What say a rich white republican women walks in

And asks a black liberal man to move out of his seat because she has priority seating.

[David__77]

31. It sounds like they would tell the black man to move.

They've determined that black men should get out of the way for white women, because this public accommodation is a women's space.

I think it's terribly backward and at all progressive.

[sheshe2]

91. Wow.

Here you are making it a racial issue when it is not. They just said women, all women they never mentioned the women's color, would be seated first. Why are you bringing up black men here? I saw no mention of black men. Did you?

This was never said in my post!

David__77
It sounds like they would tell the black man to move.

They've determined that black men should get out of the way for white women, because this public accommodation is a women's space.

I think it's terribly backward and not at all progressive.
Many of us are allies to black men and women here. Are you? Do not take away from women's rights by trying to make this racist when it is not.

[David__77]

93. I support equality in public accommodations.

And giving "priority" on the basis of sex or race strikes me as backward.

I hope that I'm wrong, and that priority doesn't mean making seated patrons move. I do not agree with creating public accommodations "spaces" on the basis of race or sex. In the US, laws prohibiting discrimination in public accommodations are progressive and worthy of support, in my opinion.

[sheshe2]

101. Where did it say patrons would be removed from their seats?

[David__77]

102. It didn't.

Ok the bus where I live, "priority seating" means that non-elderly, non-disabled people are to give up the seat for those who are elderly or disabled. I don't know what "priority" means in this establishment. I think it would be best not to create a distinction in the public accommodation based on sex.

[sheshe2]

103. First, don't make stuff up when it was not said.

Second

Ok the bus where I live, "priority seating" means that non-elderly, non-disabled people are to give up the seat for those who are elderly or disabled. I don't know what "priority" means in this establishment. I think it would be best not to create a distinction in the public accommodation based on sex.

Not sure how you could not know what the article said was "priority" seating meant. It was clearly stated that women would be seated first. How did you miss that?

[David__77]

106. Yes it says women are seated first.

It didn't say that that was what was meant by "priority" seating.

I agree with my state's laws against discrimination in the realm of public accommodation that, I believe, judges would find prevent seating customers on the basis of race or sex.

[sheshe2]

40. Well I see nothing in the article stating anyone would be thrown out of their seat.

Did you? It just said women would be seated first.

Methinks you are making a racial issue when there is none. There are a lot of women of all colors that support women of color and they them. They are called allies. Stop making problems where there are none.

[guillaumeb]

27. It is a fantastic way to publicize the real discrimination suffered.

And yes, it can be seen as lighthearted and somewhat silly, or even as discriminatory by some, but everyone of us suffers when some of us are treated unequally. No matter if it is discrimination based on color, or sex, or sexual preference, or any other difference, if we allow discrimination for one we implicitly allow it for all.

Recommended.

Plus, as a vegetarian of over 30 years, I give a cheer for every vegetarian restaurant.

[brettdale]

34. I think its horrible and shows the hypocrisy of some in the left

I remember here in New Zealand a decade back, there was a cafe owner that refused to Serve Israelis until Palestine was free,
we had a left wing activist who would always back people's rights, for example another business wanted to ban
gang members for wearing their patches in his store, he stood up for the gang members.

He was/is known in New Zealand for protesting anything he believes to be discrimination.

I emailed him and asked him, would he be protesting this cafe that wont serve Israelis?

He emailed back and said

"I couldnt care less if two Jews cant get a cup of coffee"

This cafe in aussie reminds me of him.

[Squinch]

44. Are you horrified by the fact that women's haircuts cost more than men's? That women are

routinely charged more for appliance, car and home repairs than men? That women are paid less than men? That women's toiletries cost more than men's for the same formulations? That identical items of clothing are priced higher when sold to women than they are when sold to men?

And how about that health care? Are you outraged that women have traditionally paid more for that?

I could go on for days about the "female taxes" we have to pay all day, every day. And no one ever seems to be outraged by them.

Odd, huh?

[Honeycombe8]

84. Punishing innocent people for the sins of others is the essence of discrimination.

Unless they know that a particular man has been involved in paying a woman less, they are discriminating based on gender, and have lost any credibility on the issue.

Besides, there are women HR people who pay women employees less than males, or pay female-dominated jobs less than the male-dominated jobs.

This shows a big misunderstanding of wage inequality.

[sheshe2]

97. What goes around comes around.

also please provide a link where

Besides, there are women HR people who pay women employees less than males, or pay female-dominated jobs less than the male-dominated jobs.

[Honeycombe8]

196. My last HR Director. You can call her. It's just business.

You don't pay anyone any more than you have to.

And that's the case whether HR is male or female.

It's common sense.

[Squinch]

171. I'm an innocent person who is "punished" every day in this way. So are you if you are female.

I am finding this outrage when that shoe is put on the other foot to be hilarious.

[Honeycombe8]

195. That doesn't give you a right to punch person X because you were hurt by person B. That's wrong.nt

[Squinch]

198. I haven't punched anyone and I don't plan to. But I'd support this restaurant if it were

in my town.

And in this case, those men who choose not to experience the tax are free to not go to the café. When you and I pay these taxes, often we have no such choice.

It's a good message. I support them.

[Honeycombe8]

201. That is punching. That's wrong. People either believe in discrimination or they don't.

It's not a belief where it's okay if you don't like the people being discriminated, it's okay. That is of course at the heart of all discrimination.

Is it okay to charge blacks more, if the owner's sister was killed by a black?
Is it okay to charge gays more, if the owner lost out on a job once to a gay person?

There is no end to rationalizations for discriminations.

[Squinch]

202. No, it's not punching. It's eating a veggie burrito. There's a difference.

And it is being done to provide a message. I sincerely doubt that these women think that men are worth less than they do, but they are making a statement about the universal acceptance of the idea that women are worth less.

No punching involved.

Now you will write back to say that someone is punching someone, but we'll just have to agree to disagree.

[Honeycombe8]

205. Discrimination is punching, in the meaning that you used the word.

Discrimination is wrong. Period. If you take out wrongs on people who are not responsible for those wrongs, but because they are of the gender or race or ethnicity of someone who wronged you, that is the discrimination, pure and simple.

It's amazing how some people are fine w/discrimination, when they hold something against the group being discriminated against, generally.

As I said...women are involved in paying female jobs less. More men, because there are more male decision makers. But still there are women. Just as there are women who think that women take jobs away from men, shouldn't work unless they absolutely have to, should have children, should be paid less because they get pregnant, etc. All the things that men think.

Notice that the molester Trump who has a history of denigrating women, has women supporters?

It is not just men who are responsible for 18% less pay.

[Squinch]

206. Did you misread when I said "punish" as "punch?" Because I never said "punch." You did.

And so now it's women's faults that women are paid less?

This conversation has gone from bad to worse.

[Honeycombe8]

209. I'm sorry you're uninformed on this topic.

Do some research, and maybe have a few life experiences in the business world. Take a course on the history of women. Remember Phyllis Schlafley?

My point is that, yes, women are involved in paying women less than men, to the extent that women make those decisions in the business world. It's mainly men.

The point being that discriminating against men who have done nothing wrong to women, as far as you know, is sheer discrimination against men just for being men.

I and others who are against discrimination will not change our minds. It's clear that some think discrimination is fine, as long as they have something against the group being discriminated against. Even if I don't like things about a group, I totally believe that discrimination is wrong, that people should be judged as individuals.

I and others who believe in this are right, and you know it. That is why it is the law of the land in this country. Discrimination on the basis of gender is illegal.

[Squinch]

210. LOL! I have plenty of experience with the business world and

and know as much as you on the history of women. Get a grip.

You can continue to believe that an 18% surcharge on a burrito, charged to make a very valid point, is just as bad as the discrimination that women have always experienced in every aspect of their lives.

You can continue to believe that the women making that very valid point are evil incarnate.

You can continue to throw personal insults at me because you can't think of a better way to argue.

I will continue to believe that your position is asinine.

And by the way, discrimination on the basis of gender is endemic in every aspect of our country, law of the land or not. That is exactly the point you are missing.

[Honeycombe8]

213. Please get a life and quit stalking me. We disagree on this. I believe discrimination is wrong.

Get over it. Move on. Placing you on ignore.

[Squinch]

214. Stalking you!!! You did give me a laugh! Thank you for that.

Also for placing me on ignore.

[guillaumeb]

47. The left wing activist sounds like an anti-Semite to me.

Calling into question how committed he is to rights for all.

I do not see this a discrimination, but as activist theatre for the restaurant.

[Honeycombe8]

83. I agree. I'm against discrimination against anyone. nt

[Squinch]

38. Is this supposed to be funny? Are you suggesting that transgender people identify as the opposite

sex based on inconsequential, casual whims?

That's pretty gross.

[sheshe2]

43. Please tell me you did not say that.

[Loki Liesmith]

36. Not worth my time or money

[bluepen]

77. Just consider that the tip and eat there if

You like Vegan.

If not, don't go.

I know, I know. Some are objecting to it on principle (I just wouldn't eat there because it's vegan) but if it's about the money, an 18% tip to be seated will wash out in the end.

[Eko]

37. The people upset with what these women are doing

remind me of the people who are upset with affirmative action because it discriminates. Totally dismissing the reason that the "discrimination" is occurring in the first place and are just upset at the "discrimination". Cant see the forest for the trees I tell ya.

[pangaia]

49. it absolutely boggles the mind, does it not.

people arguing, Oh this is illegal in.. _____ name your state..
Oh this is reverse discrimination...

aarrgghhh.. This is ruining the Dan Dan Mian i just made....


I mean at the least, at the VERY least can one not see at least a LITTLE bit of humor in, it tongue stuck in cheek.. irony,,,

eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeiiiiiiiiiiiii

[janx]

52. I'm not upset with what these women are doing. I just think it's stupid.

It's trendy and has nothing to do with affirmative action. They have not had to live through that.

[Eko]

58. 1st

I never said it has to do with affirmative action, only that the people complaining about it remind me of those complaining about affirmative action in that it discriminates. 2nd, trendy? Sure, trendy since 1848. “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men and women are created equal.”

[sheshe2]

72. It is trendy to want equal rights?

[Honeycombe8]

86. I'm against it because it punishes an entire group for something OTHERS did...incl. WOMEN.

It shows a misunderstanding of wage inequality. Females participate in the wage discrimination, too. They choose to pay female-dominated jobs less, or to pay women workers less.

It's also not entirely that women get paid less for the same jobs. It's also that female-dominated jobs are valued less and so pay less.

I am against discrimination against anyone. This is gender discrimination. It would be different if they knew a particular man participated in paying women employees less. Then it would be tit for tat.

I suspect most of their customers are female, though, and that's why they did it. They didn't stand to lose much male business, to begin with.

[melman]

88. It's optional

That's what the article leaves out, you can say 'no thanks. I'd rather not pay that.'




However co-owner Alex O’Brien told Seven News the surcharge, which is in place one week out of every month, wasn’t compulsory.
She also said none had so far refused to pay it and in a Facebook post overnight said the idea has been well supported overall


“If people aren’t comfortable paying it or if men don’t want to pay it, we’re not going to kick them out the door,” she said.
“It’s just a good opportunity to do some good.”


“If people aren’t comfortable paying it or if men don’t want to pay it, we’re not going to kick them out the door,” she said.
http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/food/restaurants-bars/handsome-her-cafe-in-brunswick-melbourne-charges-men-18-gender-gap-surcharge/news-story/81fc5074b7e9be8aa05240f157774e31

[Eko]

90. So you are against

affirmative action?

[sheshe2]

92. Hmmmm.

[NobodyHere]

41. Oh good

Sexism is being applauded on DU

[sheshe2]

56. Sexism is applauded every day here, toward women.

You only have an issue when it is applied to men?

Is it okay when our voices are silenced in the Senate? Harris, Warren censored. They persisted. I am sure you stood for them.

When women are told time and time again our rights are second to a mans. I am sure you stood for them.

When Viagra is more important than birth control. I am sure you stood for them.

When we are raped and the GOP tells us to lay back and enjoy it. Did you stand for them? This is about us. Our bodies. Our lives. Our means to support ourselves. We just want equality. Is that to much to ask?

[NobodyHere]

57. If by equality

You mean applauding preferential seating and gender based fees, then yes it is asking too much.

And I don't ever remember applauding for the things you mentioned.

[sheshe2]

66. Hmm.

If by equality

You mean applauding preferential seating and gender based fees, then yes it is asking too much.

Guess you missed the point, It is already applied to women.

[smirkymonkey]

129. Maybe you didn't applaud, but I doubt very much you said anything against

those things. They probably weren't something that you considered important enough. But now that the shoe is on the other foot, you see a reason to speak up.

[janx]

45. HaHa

Good luck with that, from those who love men and women.

[Neema]

60. This is straight out of Portlandia.

.

[PoliticAverse]

61. Women and Women FIrst! n/t

[Honeycombe8]

68. Wow. Well, that certainly brings home the meaning of 18%! But is it legal?

Is it legal to do that in a public restaurant?

[Bladewire]

70. Smiling all the way to the bank

... while making a bang on the world stage with a statement on the pay gap. Nice!

[melman]

79. This article leaves a couple of important things out

Namely that the tax is one week a month and it's optional.

[geek tragedy]

89. I wonder if this guy will dine there

https://m.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

161. That's my freeper sister in law.

Every holiday party she marches in to announce how gluten has caused projectile diarrhea and weight gain.

It's a step up from having to hear about her uterus ablation.

[geek tragedy]

162. Ewwwww. nt

[Pachamama]

114. I think another way it could be introduced would be to have same prices, but offer female patrons

....an 18% discount in acknowledgement that they are paid that percent on average less than men in the gender pay gap. That way, there would still be a way to drive the message home of the inequalities and to benefit the women.

[MineralMan]

121. Love it! Payback.

[ProfessorGAC]

137. I'm Not Digging The Business Strategy, But I've Got No Complaints

It's their business and they aren't completely excluding people.

I do think they might want to do something like a man comes in with his wife/girlfriend and there is no surcharge. Just men on their own. Then they could couch as it as a way to assure a woman friendly environment.

A wife wanting to go there and taking her husband would be good for business (two instead of one) and wouldn't necessarily diminish the friendly environment.

But, like i said, it's their business, and while it might seem like discrimination, it's hard to see where the actual harm exists.

[jalan48]

138. Doesn't sound like a good business plan to me but if it works for them c'est la vie.

[stopbush]

139. Ugh. I'll pass.

[oberliner]

141. What about genderqueer folks?

And others who are non-binary.

[David__77]

166. Someone will evaluate whether or not the charge applies, and potentially invalidate their gender.

It's a bad idea, and, I believe, would be illegal where I live.

[titaniumsalute]

148. Good thing I'm not a Vegan

And frankly I think this is stupid. I would think a steakhouse that charges females 18% tax would be just a dumb.

[Orrex]

149. They're going to be attacked by a horde of fedora-wearing neards.

[yallerdawg]

151. Kick...

and highly recommend!

"to the forefront of people's minds!"

[NurseJackie]

157. I'd go there! (If I'm ever in Australia.) Maybe the idea will spread...

... to the United States.

[niyad]

164. I love this. would love it if caught on here in the states as well.

[sheshe2]

165. This!

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

168. Men who patronize vegan cafes...

Sounds like they're targeting the patriarchy with some laser-guided hellfire through the window precision right there.

[Squinch]

172. Ah, yes. They must be dumb, right? This must all be just badly done "patriarchy targeting"

rather than simply pointing out an undeniable discrimination. And they must not know that REAL men only eat meat, right? They aren't reading the men right, so this is just stupid, right?

[EX500rider]

175. Apparently China decided to go a slightly different way:

Chinese restaurant offers bra-size discounts

A Chinese restaurant has come under fire for offering discounts to women depending on their bra size, it's reported.
According to the Qianjiang Evening Post, local people complained to the council after seeing posters advertising discounts for the Trendy Shrimp restaurant at a mall in Hangzhou, the main city of coastal Zhejiang province.
The company's adverts showed a line-up of cartoon women in their underwear with the slogan "The whole city is looking for BREASTS". It listed discounts for women depending on their cup size, with greater offers available to women with bigger busts.



http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-news-from-elsewhere-40851224

[johnp3907]

182. This is kinda off the subject, but....

I love the ignore function! As I write this there are 179 comments, but I only see 8! (I saw a few more earlier, but I added 2 jerks to my ignore list since then.) I logged out just now to see what all those comments I can't see were all about, and Holly Cow! What a bunch of privileged crybabies!!!! It's funny how so many of their comments boil down to "It's not fair!!!!" Bingo!

[EX500rider]

183. Yes, who doesn't love a echo chamber...lol

[sheshe2]

185. Please correct me if I am wrong about your post.

Are you saying women are privileged cry babies? I hope not.

[johnp3907]

186. No no! Just the opposite!

It's the men being crybabies. And sadly, they don't even learn the very lesson that they themselves are inadvertently pointing out with their cries of "No fair!"
I think these cafe owners are doing a wonderful thing.

[sheshe2]

189. Thank you, John!

Sorry just wasn't sure.

Again, thank you.

[ileus]

184. Now that's equality in the highest order.

[yuiyoshida]

207. We need one in San Francisco

I wonder if they will have a franchise?

[sheshe2]

208. Ha!

[romanic]

211. I give them 3 months.